Giants To Sign Gregor Blanco To Minor-League Deal

Jan. 30: FanRag’s Jon Heyman tweets that Blanco would earn $1MM upon making the MLB roster and can pocket another $500K based on plate-appearance incentives.

Jan. 29: The Giants and Gregor Blanco have agreed to terms on a contract that will bring the outfielder back to San Francisco. Blanco himself announced the reunion on his Instagram account. Chris Cotillo of SB Nation tweets that it’s a minor-league deal.

Blanco, 34, will return to a Giants team with whom he played from 2012-2016 and won two World Series rings. During his years in San Francisco, he was a roughly league-average hitter, slashing .259/.338/.360 (99 wRC+) across 2,054 plate appearances. A good portion of Blanco’s value came from his outfield defense and base-stealing ability. Though he never hit well during the postseason, he managed to walk 11.9% of the time during October of 2012 and 2014 combined, and crossed the plate a total of 20 times in 33 games.

Blanco’s tenure with the Giants game to an end following a 2016 season that saw him hit the DL in August with a right shoulder injury. The Diamondbacks elected to scoop him up on a minor-league deal last offseason, and the team ended up selecting his contract on May 5th following the transfer of the injured Shelby Miller to the 60-day DL. Blanco went on to hit .246/.337/.357 across 256 plate appearances while playing a reserve outfielder role.

Though Blanco is now 34 and his speed isn’t what it once was, he still has a shot to split playing time with the newly-signed Austin Jackson in center field. Indeed; a platoon combination of the two makes a lot of sense; the left-handed-hitting Blanco is a 98 wRC+ hitter against righties for his career, while his mark against lefties is 13 points beneath that. Meanwhile the right-handed-hitting Jackson absolutely demolished lefites last year, to the tune of a .357/.440/.574 batting line.

Any player that isn’t even a regular can accomplish it in less than 10 seasons. I’m sure it’s something players are proud of when they look back on their careers, but I really don’t see why it’s all that noteworthy

You are obviously not an ex baseball player at a high level & full of it – staying in the MLB for even 5 years at a high level – considered being in 40 man roster – is HARD! So 1000 games is a good to be proud milestone –

The Dodgers have more money and it doesn’t have anything to do with the ownership group from either team. The Dodgers are SWIMMING in cash from their TV deal, which is BY FAR the richest in baseball. The LA television deal is a 25 year deal that pays them $8.35 BILLION. The Giants TV deal? 25 years and $1.75 billion.

I couldn’t find 2017 numbers readily available, but would anyone care to guess how much revenue the Dodgers got from their TV deal in 2016 alone? 204 million dollars… the Giants had 54 million in TV revenue for the same year.

For comparison, the Yankees made 98 million in TV revenue in 2016.

Owners didn’t get to their positions in life by wasting money. EVERY SINGLE owner or ownership group is involved in baseball because owning a team is almost as good as printing money in your basement. The difference is that the Dodgers literally couldn’t even stay under the luxury tax line if they didn’t spend a single dime of their own money and simply relied on the $200+ million they get for simply airing their games on TV.

Let that sink in for a moment… the Dodgers can exceed the luxury tax limit EVERY SINGLE YEAR and NEVER spend a single dime of their own money (granted, with accelerated penalties for multiple years spent beyond the lux tax mark they may not be able to go too far over- but still). They make ALMOST DOUBLE the second highest TV deal in baseball, which is also in LA with the Angels, who got 118 million in 2016.

The Rays, Rockies, and Marlins each got $20 million for 2016… so the Dodgers got more than 10x their haul! Just about anyone can field an extremely competitive team when you have that kind of endless resource stream.

Dodger TV deal increases as well- it’s a perfect comparison. You could have divided 8.35 billion by 25 on your own to see that their AVERAGE value per year is 334 million. So guess what that means? That means by the end of the Dodger deal they’ll be getting more than 400 million per year from that exact same contract.

The Yankees were used for context, given the innate sense of outrageous wealth that everyone has already associated with them for far longer than has been the case with the Dodgers.

But we weren’t even talking about the Dodgers and Yankees, people were comparing the Giants and Dodgers in a financial sense. There is no comparison between those two teams financially, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the bank accounts of either ownership group. That was the point.

I got the total value of the Yankees deal from: link to forbes.com so please disregard that other $5.7 Billion figure, which excludes things like upfront payment, selling some of their YES stake (Yankees currently own 20% of YES)

Are you not reading all of the comments? The Yankees were used for CONTEXT. The Yankee TV deal, by your numbers, is still 600 million less for a 20% longer period of time. The average annual value is far less than the Dodgers- and that by itself is the entire point of this. The Yankees have been synonymous with ridiculous payrolls and salaries for DECADES and the Dodgers get more money than them- so how do you think that compares with the SF Giants TV revenue? Again, the Yankees aren’t even a part of this discussion beyond a meaningful point of reference to the “less informed” reader.

Harping on any part of the Yankee example is the equivalent of telling a Bugatti owner that the Ferrari parked next to it is almost as nice- when you pulled up with 27 other (excluding the Angels here) late model Honda Civics.

Nah, I read it. it’s not you, just a lot of people think the Yankees’ rate is locked in. Pretty cool that the Dodgers’ deal includes escalators though, I did not know that. You learn something new, everyday!

Dodgers TV deal is better than the Yankees’ deal, I just didn’t like that you used the 2016 Revenue, for context, since NY gets 5% annual raises for 30 years, from their TV deal, which is crazy.

Total guaranteed ($8.35B to $7.7B) would’ve been better comparison as well as the term length. (25 years to 30) But I understand where you were coming from. Don’t get me wrong, Yankees getting $100M+ from their 2017 TV revenue, is nothing to laugh at, but technically, Dodgers’ 2017 TV revenue, (204 million) is double the Yankees’ 2017 (~100 million+) if you have to use that example– for context.

Talk to me in 2033-2042, when Yankees are getting paid $300 million+ per year, to air their games on YES. That’s where the big bucks, lies ;)

The Dodgers don’t actually have the money they are spending. They are using investment funds from the ownership group to build a brand. They are investing in the future of the team. The giants are a profitable team with a top 5 payroll. They are also one of the most valuable sports franchises on the planet, yes ahead of the Dodgers. Of course the giants and Dodgers make each other more valuable with the best and longest sports rivalry in pro sports.

Who comes up with this stuff? The Dodgers have a TV deal that is nearly double the size of the second biggest TV deal in all of baseball, which is the Angels. The Dodger TV deal pays them 8.35 billion over 25 years per data taken straight from fan graphs. That means they get an AVERAGE of 334 million dollars per year, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, for 25 consecutive years. Guess what happens when that 25 years is over? They’ll get a new contract worth even more money. The Dodgers have more money than they can spend and not one red cent of that money comes out of their pockets.

That ownership group bought the Dodgers for the EXACT SAME reason that any other owner ever buys any other team: because it’s an insanely good investment and because they have the capital to purchase it. So please, everyone, stop with the debates about who has the most money- the Dodger TV deal is more than DOUBLE the Yankees in terms of revenue, which is nearly double the Giants. By fan graphs estimates, which are very thoughtfully researched and prepositioned, if you were to add the Yankees TV revenue and DOUBLE the current SF Giants TV deal revenue, you would have 206 million- the Dodgers alone got 204 million in 2016.

Hey Bruce, you’re either not very bright or you’re not a very good troll- one of those two things is 100% true.

If you aren’t able to grasp the difference in financial situations between the Dodgers and, for example, ANY other team in the NL West, then there’s nothing to talk about here. The Dodger TV deal provides their organization with unreal payroll flexibility that they don’t even have to work for. They’re in a massive TV market, all they have to do is be where they’ve been since the 1950’s and in return they get hundreds of millions of dollars more PER YEAR than their competitors.

I believe you are right about the Dodgers having more money to spend, but you are wrong when you are saying they are not spending their own money ! You just don’t understand what I was saying cuz you were wrong! You said they can ” go past the luxury tax every year and still never spend a single dime of their own money !” That’s just not true! It is their money! It’s being paid to them for services right? Then it’s theirs! So how are they not spending their own money ? Once they get it, it’s theirs! So now who’s not very bright? 100%

The Giants understand the entertainment side of baseball. Most of these players, sans a few, have almost a cult-like following in the Bay Area.

For a lot of fans, the draw isn’t always the W-L record, but also the players.

I was in Wisconsin when they traded Lucroy and Gomez. I spoke with many smart baseball fans who understood the rationalization to trading those two. It didn’t mean they were happy about it. And ticket sales suffered tremendously because of it.

There’s nothing wrong with bringing back popular players, especially on MiLB commitments.

Oh please. Fans stop going because the team isn’t winning. If the brewers lost Lucroy to free agency the same fans wouldn’t come back because they aren’t winning. Those same fans will go to games this year in Milwaukee because they will probably win more then they will lose. they aren’t going to not go because Lucroy isn’t on the team anymore. Last thing teams should do is listen to the simpleton fans at all.

Oh please. You act like the Brewers were winning games when Lucroy and Gomez were traded. They weren’t. Yet fans still went.

When Lucroy and Gomez were traded, the fans disappeared. Again, the long-term benefits have been clear: the Brewers got way better since that trade. But pretending like fans didn’t care is an unbelievably naive and silly take.

When it comes to MiLB deals, teams often go with fan favorites, players from the area, and potentially popular clubhouse figures. There is no risk in it, only reward.

Good signing for a minor league. He must prove to have value in spring training. One of my favorite guys to see play the game. Followed on him since he played with the Braves and became a fan favorite with the Giants.

As a Giants fan, I’m pretty sick of this retread nonsense. I fully understand that there is no risk in a minor league signing, but this clinging to the past is getting out of hand. There are plenty of guys who aren’t in their mid 30’s who could most likely do as good or better job. I love what Blanco did for the organization over the years, but I’m over these sentimental coming home signings. We all know it’s only a matter of time before Lincecum and Romo are back on minors deals. What ever became of the knuckle ball Brian Wilson was working on?

I am a Giants fan, but the nostalgia tour needs to end. I think the Big Red Machine of the 70’s is a fair comp for the Giants of the 2010-2014 era. The Reds didn’t keep that team together for long after their ‘75 and ‘76 WS wins. The only player on those teams they reacquired later was Pete Rose as a player/manager, but once they traded or released a player, they were never brought back. The Reds and the fan base moved on from all their players no matter how good or bad. I joke that when the typical Giants fan found out they acquired Evan Longoria, the reaction was, “That’s weird. Is Panda injured or something?”

Honestly every guy they have brought back has been low-risk. Vogelsong in 2011 turned out to be better than expected. Yeah, Pablo wasn’t the best guy to come back but to at least see what he could do in a lost year, there’s no harm. Come spring training we can see what comes from the old guys, but stuff like this is so low risk, why the need to stop it.

Hey, be careful what you say even in jest because it may come to pass. Just last week I was joking that it would be SUCH a Giants move to bring back Blanco, but I seriously thought they’d turned the corner on bringing back former players.